Trying and failing to lose. #frustratedfemale

Replies

• Posts: 2,985 Member
BinkyBonk wrote: »
BinkyBonk wrote: »
1. Regarding the first reply: Muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs the same as 1 pound of fat. The difference lies in the amount of space they take up - as 1 pound of muscle will take up less space on your body than 1 pound of fat. BUT, you can do a search on that, as it's been debated on here for... well forever basically.

And yet, after all this time, you don't get it. Muscle weighs more than fat. Of course 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat. 1 lb of muscle weighs the same as 1 lb of fat weighs the same as 1 lb of feathers and 1 lb of bricks. All are 1 lb. We do not determine what weighs more by picking two items of the same weight. To determine which of two items weighs more, we grab equal volumes. 1 cm square of muscle weighs more than 1 cm square of fat. That is comparing equal volumes. Of course 100 grams of fat weighs the same as 100 grams of fat... because the premise includes a set weight.

I'm confused. Aren't you two arguing the same point, just describing it differently?

The problem arises when someone insists that muscle does not weight less than fat, it just takes up less space. Usually it's phrased as 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. By that same logic, muscle doesn't take up less space. Because 1 cubic inch of muscle = 1 cubic inch of fat, it's just that the muscle weighs more.

Muscle is more dense than fat.
Muscle takes up less space than fat (when comparing equal weights).
Muscle weighs more than fat (when comparing equal volumes).

They're three different ways of saying the same thing. People often try to "correct" someone by rephrasing it, but it's unnecessarily pedantic.

I'm sorry if you found my brief explanation pedantic, but it's no worse than being unnecessarily pedagogic.
To be fair, I don't think that comment was directed toward you.

If it was not, then I sincerely apologize to Dianne. [Yet another misunderstanding here.] Hence why I've been a member for years and never bothered much with the forums. Thank you Binky for the clarification. And apologies to all for any and all confusion and/or misunderstanding. :flowerforyou:
• Posts: 51 Member
jasonmh630 wrote: »
nurse3794 wrote: »
What's working for me is clean eating - no processed foods, dairy, gluten along with 2 Zumba classes a week and crossfit once a week (plus short daily workouts) good luck! x

I am also doing clean eating, and exercising daily with great results. It's amazing how our bodies can transform when we only put pure natural foods in it!

Whether you eat "clean" or not doesn't determine if you lose weight. Being in a calorie deficit is the ONLY thing that determines if you lose weight. Regardless, "clean eating" doesn't actually exist. EVERYTHING is processed to some extent.

Well said, hear hear
• Posts: 2,985 Member
jasonmh630 wrote: »
nurse3794 wrote: »
What's working for me is clean eating - no processed foods, dairy, gluten along with 2 Zumba classes a week and crossfit once a week (plus short daily workouts) good luck! x

I am also doing clean eating, and exercising daily with great results. It's amazing how our bodies can transform when we only put pure natural foods in it!

Whether you eat "clean" or not doesn't determine if you lose weight. Being in a calorie deficit is the ONLY thing that determines if you lose weight. Regardless, "clean eating" doesn't actually exist. EVERYTHING is processed to some extent.

+1,000 :agree:
• Posts: 3 Member
MplsJones wrote: »
@vsummersgill Do you restrict calories on the clean eating diet? What does your daily intake consist of?
Sorry just noticed your message. I don't go out of my way to restrict calories but because of the foods I do eat I always come within the recommended daily calorie allowance. A typical day for me is natural yoghurt with flax seeds for breakfast, salads for lunch (as easy at work) the some sort if curry with cauliflower rice for dinner. Snacks tend to be nuts, fruit and the occasional Naked bar as a treat.